Skaftouros v. United States
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 25222
| 2d Cir. | 2011Background
- Skaftouros challenged a Greece extradition order, arguing the arrest warrant was invalid under Greek law and the Greek statute of limitations had expired.
- The District Court granted habeas relief, concluding the Government failed to prove the Treaty requirements and that Skaftouros was being held unlawfully.
- The U.S.–Greece Extradition Treaty permits extradition for murder; Article V bars extradition if the statute of limitations has expired in either country.
- The warrant was signed by an investigating magistrate but not the Clerk; substitute service on Skaftouros’s mother occurred after indictment; October 1991 Order tolled the Greek statute of limitations.
- The majority held the habeas burden is on the petitioner to show violation of the Treaty or U.S. law, not on the Government to prove compliance with Greek law, and that the Treaty requirements were satisfied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who bears the burden in habeas review of extradition orders? | Skaftouros argued Government bears burden to show treaty compliance. | United States argued its burden to prove treaty compliance but not Greek-law details at habeas stage. | Petitioner bears the burden of proof on habeas review. |
| Is the Greek arrest warrant 'duly authenticated' and show Skaftouros is currently charged? | Skaftouros contends defects render warrant invalid under Greek law. | Government contends warrant is sufficiently authenticated and shows current charge. | Warrant satisfied treaty requirement; not invalid for technical Greek-law defects. |
| Has the Greek statute of limitations for murder expired under Treaty Article V? | Skaftouros asserted the Greek statute of limitations had run; tolling not proven. | Government asserted tolling extended to 25 years due to October 1991 Order; service proof contested. | The Government did not prove non-tolling; Skaftouros did not carry burden to show expiration. |
| Did the district court improperly analyze Greece's compliance with its own law? | District Court correctly scrutinized Greek procedure to assess treaty compliance. | District Court exceeded proper scope by examining foreign law; should only ensure treaty compliance. | Yes; the district court erred by analyzing Greek law beyond treaty compliance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sacirbey v. Guccione, 589 F.3d 52 (2d Cir. 2009) (extradition warrant validity limited to treaty compliance; not Bosnian-law validity)
- Jhirad v. Ferrandina, 536 F.2d 478 (2d Cir. 1976) (burden of proof in extradition proceedings; beyond initial extradition, not beyond treaty limits)
- Grin v. Shine, 187 U.S. 181 (1902) (satisfied by equivalent document; focus on treaty requirement rather than foreign-law validity)
- Caltagirone v. Grant, 629 F.2d 739 (2d Cir. 1980) (treaty does not involve review of foreign arrest warrants’ technical validity)
- In re Neely, 103 F.626 (2d Cir. 1900) (certificate and authenticity standards for foreign papers in extradition)
- Fernandez v. Phillips, 268 U.S. 311 (1925) (judicial modesty; comity limits review of foreign law in extradition)
- Shapiro v. Ferrandina, 478 F.2d 894 (2d Cir. 1973) (avoid hypertechnical challenges to foreign criminal procedure)
- Petrushansky v. Marasco, 325 F.2d 562 (2d Cir. 1963) (treaty compliance controls; limited habeas scope)